Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 23:35:00 -
[781] - Quote
GOON TEARS THREATENNING CCP BUT IM A COWARD NOOB LOL By Sion Kumitomo
Dear CCP:
I love spaceships. I love the sandbox. The sheer possibilities afforded by the near-limitless options and the organic player-driven content are things you just can't find anywhere else. So what I say next, I say out of deep concern. Though you might find it hurtful, it is not meant to hurt.
Incompetence like this ruins your sandbox.
By 'this', I mean the re-mapping of the node in Z9PP during the battle yesterday. The battle in Z9PP started with the destruction of a TEST ihub around downtime, and over the next twelve hours, the system saw varying levels of continued conflict. At peak, local was near 2000 pilots with more set to join the fray. That is, the battle itself was still in the process of escalating. All of this was abruptly ended by the incompetence of your engineers. Further escalation of the battle would have seen hundreds of capitals lost, and supers perhaps fielded or lost. It would have been a battle to remember, a battle that would have graced headlines, a battle pilots would have recalled with pride, or with horror. And that's just the start of what your mistake cost you and thousands of players.
I've seen allegations of t20 levels of conspiracy by various parties, but I think we both know that's not the case. You didn't do this out of maliceGÇöI'm certain it was just as you said here, a mistake. Mistakes are fine, everyone makes them. But making the same mistake repeatedly means you aren't learning from them. GSF's own dread fleet was saved by a similar node remap a scant couple of weeks ago, a similar missed opportunity to showcase the vibrant and violent nature of EVE.
But incompetence is worse than malice.
As a company that thrives on occupying a niche in the MMO market, it is in your best interests to prevent this from ever occurring again. These kinds of massive battles and the surrounding narratives are what give you free publicity, both through word of mouth and in the gaming press. If you don't hold your people accountable, and if you don't strive to ensure that checks are in place to prevent this, you're not just hurting the players involved directly, you're hurting the whole gameGÇöincluding yourselves.
You cannot risk your reputation becoming 'lol CCP', nor can you afford to pass up the windfall that massive battles generate for you. What astounds me most is that something like this, something so precious and important to your business model, is something that doesn't have multiple checks in place to prevent just such an event from occurring. This wasn't GÇ£just a fightGÇ¥. These events and others like them are what drive the whole of EVE. It should come as no surprise that players expect pvp to matter in a game built around the integral idea that pvp matters.
Why you wouldn't protect these events as much as you are able is quite utterly beyond me. I don't mean to denigrate other aspects of the game, of course, but let's be honest: the biggest draw of EVE is the possibility that you will have a part in something major. And when it comes to that, very little equals a huge war-turning battle, the murder of a capfleet, or the destruction of thousands of ships. Remember Asakai? That now infamous system and so many others like it are the beating heart of this game. Massive battles are your piles of gold, their stories your frankincense, and their widespread impacts your myrrh.
You can't make pvp matter without making it matter when it matters the most. You cannot allow typos to undermine your game and the potential of EVE, not when it is something so important to your business model.
I don't want a witch hunt. No one does. You've already given us answers as to what happened, and I commend your openness. Communication lets all of us know what transpired and is a great starting point. But it is just that, a starting point. Moreover, what was offered was merely an apology, whereas what you require is action towards a permanent solution. My sincere hope is that you address this issue and communicate to us how it has been addressed. Failing that, I suspect we'll have our answers during the next major fleet battle.
But remember, CCP, this isn't just about the fights. As stewards of the sandbox, you are accountable for it, and it is your reputation and your game that are at stake. So for your sake and ours, the remapping of a node with an active battle must not be allowed to happen again.
Your players understand these implications, CCP. Do you?
How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 00:32:00 -
[782] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Also, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post on the last page. How would you determine which of those two situations are harassment if not making a judgement about intent.
I'll give you time to go back and reread it.
Or are you just going to continue ignoring points that expose your arguments for the empty, weak things they are He can't. I posted the exact same concept to him on post ~70 in this thread. Then he started off on 100 different tangents to try to avoid answering it, going as far as quoting one or two words from it and claiming something which is literally the opposite of the known facts.
It's bizarre, but people who are unable to be seen as wrong on a forum often behave this way. They want to believe if they can just say the right thing, they will convince people they weren't wrong.
I suggest you just ignore him; my discussion with him proved he's willing to endlessly claim something that is provably untrue, even going so far as to post evidence that he's wrong, and claim it supports his case. The sad thing is, I assume at this point he thinks himself rather clever, as though all of this wasn't enormously transparent 20 pages ago. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 00:42:00 -
[783] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:[rabble rabble rabble]
I'm mildly curious why you're all on the same page throwing "intent" around like it means something. You can't reference a single instance of CCP mentioning anything even remotely similar, so.... Do Goons have some sort of internal memo on the topic? Is it just a convenient loophole to cling to? Too many lawyer dramas maybe? Perhaps you just like my rambling on the topic?
Inquiring minds want to know. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7217
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 07:01:00 -
[784] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote: Again, why focusing on bumping and it's relations to bumping miners is, as I've said, a terrible comparison.
Its exactly the same thing, the only difference is the size of the object we are ramming into. So how are you using bumping as a warp disruptor when bumping a miner from mining a rock?
Bump the miner so he cannot align to warp off and then gank it. Exactly what we are doing with freighters. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7220
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 07:12:00 -
[785] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:[rabble rabble rabble] I'm mildly curious why you're all on the same page throwing "intent" around like it means something. You can't reference a single instance of CCP mentioning anything even remotely similar, so.... Do Goons have some sort of internal memo on the topic? Is it just a convenient loophole to cling to? Too many lawyer dramas maybe? Perhaps you just like my rambling on the topic? Inquiring minds want to know.
If you look through the dev blogs you will find the crimewatch blog that says CCP do not want logging off to be a valid tactic when attacked and if you look back to around spring last year you will find a blog made by the head GM stating that bumping is seen as another form of warp disruption in their eyes. So we know CCPs oppinion on this matter.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15093
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 08:15:00 -
[786] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:I think you are starting to supplement data to reinforce facts that do not exist. How so?
Murk Paradox wrote:Point 1- Yes, freighters ARE special. The do not have all the functionality othyer ships do in regards to having an aggression timer applied to them. Except maybe a shuttle. Is that what you're trying to say? Freighters are shuttles? Didn't think so. AVOIDING the need for the mechanic applied is moot. We are not talking about preventive maintenance, but application.
Point 2- Same as point 1. Freighters are most definitely not like any other ship in the game, except shuttles (yes shuttles can have an aggression timer too, but that is an entirely different topic isn't it?). You want to say a freighter is a capital, that's why they can't logoff, or why the need for the timer existed? Fine. Keep them out of highsec! Make them the same. Or give them the ability to aggress "like every other ship in game" (except shuttles bleh).
Point3- I do not agree with Tippia to say it takes DAYS to become "excessive". You yourself said that is not possible (downtime) and that GM/DEVs have final say. I do not understand how you can think it's impossible to agree with you and not Tippia at the same time. Maybe it isn't me who should try to keep up with other people posting. Take your own advice maybe. 1. Freighters having a specific function in the game, does not and should not make them exempt from this aggression timer. It was put in place to stop people logging off to save their skin and includes all ships. Hence why this doesn't make the freighter special in this regard.
2. See 1.
3. I agree with Tippia and just worded what he said differently. Maybe English isn't your first language? But after reading other posts, there is most certainly a lack of comprehension on your part. No disrespect intended.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1945
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 09:34:00 -
[787] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:[rabble rabble rabble] I'm mildly curious why you're all on the same page throwing "intent" around like it means something. You can't reference a single instance of CCP mentioning anything even remotely similar, so.... Do Goons have some sort of internal memo on the topic? Is it just a convenient loophole to cling to? Too many lawyer dramas maybe? Perhaps you just like my rambling on the topic? Inquiring minds want to know. The question from myself (and gunslinger) logically demonstrates that the only method you can use to classify whether something is harassment or not, when no actions that lead to the harassment are 'illegal', is to show why the person was doing it.
To what end the person was being bumped is what makes it either allowable, or against the rules. No, I can't quote CCP saying this because it's the logical result of someone saying they will judge someone's actions on a case-by-case basis. There's no more evidence that CCP judge intent than there is they judge by the colour of your underwear; which is why asking to prove a negative is just silly. There's a logical foundation that they do one and not another. More to the point, anyone who has ever sent in a petition on player behaviour (or been the result of one) will know CCP judge punishment on the basis of why you were doing it - alas, I cannot provide evidence for this as it is against the forum rules. I can only suggest if you truly want an answer to this and aren't just using it to try to blow smoke on discussions in this thread that you privately ask CCP.
Or, go ahead and quote two words and say "it's not" without providing any form of logical argument or evidence for your assertions. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1479
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:05:00 -
[788] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:RubyPorto wrote:And since HS currently has no special combat timers, why do you feel HS should suddenly operate under different combat rules than everywhere else? Because it does already, simply with having CONCORD around. Then add that CCP has special circumstances in the area as a measure to not scare off 9 out of 10 new players -- and will tune it harder if you mess with it's ISK factory (as the typical mouthbreather doesn't think about the consequences).
Oh look someone invoking the "think of the new players" horsecrap.
Pro tip mate: New players aren't flying around in billion isk freighters that take ages to train for. Hope this helps. |
PeHD0M
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:19:00 -
[789] - Quote
This is definitely a flawed game mechanic and exploit. Bumping is a form of disabling the ship, so that kind of activity should activate the GCC. Simple. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1479
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:22:00 -
[790] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Because CCP thinks War decs are the correct way to pvp someone in high sec. It would be transparent at the user level anyway.
Where on Earth are you getting this garbage? Where have CCP said that on the only "correct" way to PVP in highsec is through wars? I've never seen that anywhere. Do you believe that suicide ganks, baiting, etc are all invalid forms of PVP? If they're not the "correct" way to PVP why have CCP explicitly implemented those abilities?
I have never met someone so totally oblivious and misinformed. Do you even play this game? |
|
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:23:00 -
[791] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Ace Uoweme wrote:RubyPorto wrote:And since HS currently has no special combat timers, why do you feel HS should suddenly operate under different combat rules than everywhere else? Because it does already, simply with having CONCORD around. Then add that CCP has special circumstances in the area as a measure to not scare off 9 out of 10 new players -- and will tune it harder if you mess with it's ISK factory (as the typical mouthbreather doesn't think about the consequences). Oh look someone invoking the "think of the new players" horsecrap. Pro tip mate: New players aren't flying around in billion isk freighters that take ages to train for. Hope this helps.
Pro tip mate: Mouthbreathers are dull to begin with, regardless of game they play. It's why they're but cannon fodder anyway. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5412
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:29:00 -
[792] - Quote
PeHD0M wrote:This is definitely a flawed game mechanic and exploit. Bumping is a form of disabling the ship, so that kind of activity should activate the GCC. Simple.
Let's assume CCP does what you want. So what counts as bumping, as in how do you determine which ship should be destroyed and which gets to pick up free loot from the wreck of the "offender"? |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1479
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:38:00 -
[793] - Quote
PeHD0M wrote:This is definitely a flawed game mechanic and exploit. Bumping is a form of disabling the ship, so that kind of activity should activate the GCC. Simple.
Do people not think of the consequences of the crap they spew?
What happens when you're in a fleet fight in highsec, with your fleet mates and enemies all mashed together in a big ball slugging it out at point blank range? Oh look, they all get concorded and sec hits.
What happens when you have people PVEing and orbiting / approaching a single ship to keep formation? Oh look, they all get concorded and sec hits.
What happens when anyone ever undocks from a station? Oh look, they all get concorded and sec hits.
and so on |
Templar Knightsbane
Offensive Upholder Upholders
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:40:00 -
[794] - Quote
To be brutal, and with the frieghter pilot knowing that he was going to be ganked, did he even once shout in local that people were going to be getting criminal timers and for everyone to ship into a frig for some free killmails???
I mean even without friends, people like free killmails, this one line in local could have saved the freighter, all i see here is a total lack of pro-activeness on the part of the freighter pilot to avoid this over the course of an hour.
He could have contacted a HS Merc corp and given them a couple of hundred mil for a logi and some frigates to turn up.
He could have gotten alliance mates to come help.
Alts are very good for this sort of thing.
All arguments i see here are null and void as the intention wasn't to grief the freighter it was to kill it and loot it which is 100% part of life in EVE.
This thread needs locking imo its pointless, going nowhere and there has been no violation of any rule set out by CCP that i am aware of.
Also, arguing that CCP think there is a right and wrong way to PVP anywhere is pretty hilarious, thats what the mechanics of the game are used for, hence the flagging system, concord etc etc etc.
Still all i see is 15 pilots vs 1 Pilot the odds of the one pilots survival are beyond low in any ship at any time in EVE given that the 15 pilots used tactics and planning to get a job done!!! |
PeHD0M
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:44:00 -
[795] - Quote
Can you disable the neutral ship with warp scram in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - GCC, Concordokken, loss of the security status
Can you disable the neutral ship by bumping it for hours in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - None. Clearly an exploit.
I don't know how to fix it. Even more, i'm not sure that it is even possible to fix it without changing the warp mechanics. But clearly something should be done by CCP, otherwise sooner or later that trick will ruin the game for a lot of players in hi-sec. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15095
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:45:00 -
[796] - Quote
PeHD0M wrote:This is definitely a flawed game mechanic and exploit. Except it's definitely not.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:52:00 -
[797] - Quote
PeHD0M wrote:Can you disable the neutral ship with warp scram in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - GCC, Concordokken, loss of the security status
Can you disable the neutral ship by bumping it for hours in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - None. Clearly an exploit.
I don't know how to fix it. Even more, i'm not sure that it is even possible to fix it without changing the warp mechanics. But clearly something should be done by CCP, otherwise sooner or later that trick will ruin the game for a lot of players in hi-sec.
In EvE it's changing the physics, which would be a major overall.
Can't have realistic physics in a game that doesn't even fight realistically. Conditions have to be set. One such condition is how the physics works, which would fix the other problems in the game as well (like getting trapped on top and in structures in space. If there weren't any waypoints in the direction that was out, would have to petition a GM to move my ship as it would remain stuck. It got there to begin with due to those very physics that allow bouncing and bumping of ships). "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
PeHD0M
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:58:00 -
[798] - Quote
Nope. You are wrong.
Bumping miners is one case. Bumping for hours is another. The player tried to move to another location, but he is UNABLE do it because of said actions. Therefore:
Quote:However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7220
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 12:28:00 -
[799] - Quote
PeHD0M wrote:Can you disable the neutral ship with warp scram in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - GCC, Concordokken, loss of the security status
Can you disable the neutral ship by bumping it for hours in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - None. Clearly an exploit.
I don't know how to fix it. Even more, i'm not sure that it is even possible to fix it without changing the warp mechanics. But clearly something should be done by CCP, otherwise sooner or later that trick will ruin the game for a lot of players in hi-sec.
We have been doing this for a decade... |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
370
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 12:29:00 -
[800] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PeHD0M wrote:Can you disable the neutral ship with warp scram in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - GCC, Concordokken, loss of the security status
Can you disable the neutral ship by bumping it for hours in hi-sec? - Yes Consequences? - None. Clearly an exploit.
I don't know how to fix it. Even more, i'm not sure that it is even possible to fix it without changing the warp mechanics. But clearly something should be done by CCP, otherwise sooner or later that trick will ruin the game for a lot of players in hi-sec. We have been doing this for a decade...
Dinosaurs meet reality.
"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7220
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 12:31:00 -
[801] - Quote
PeHD0M wrote:Nope. You are wrong. Bumping miners is one case. Bumping for hours is another. The player tried to move to another location, but he is UNABLE do it because of said actions. Therefore: Quote:However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp. |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 12:32:00 -
[802] - Quote
Goon Gummy Bear Tears MMMMMMMM YUMMMY How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1482
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 12:51:00 -
[803] - Quote
I think Callyuk has completely lost his mind, he's just ranting against the goon bogeyman when the majority of the people in this thread aren't even goons to begin with |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1482
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 13:11:00 -
[804] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Typherian wrote:Yes it says "hey we are using the systems provided to kill people trying to solo in an MMO." You can whine and cry all you want but playing eve solo will always put you at a disadvantage. Crying that you don't like a mechanic doesn't make it an exploit. If you need the mechanic to accomplish a goal, without having to depend on it (let it do it's thing in the background) then it's working how it should. You know... such as... having to chase a ship, or try to reship and let that timer keep the person getting away scot free. When you sit there and take pop shots, just to refresh a timer so he cannot do anything, that's exploiting it.
What bizarro EVE are you playing where the ability to refresh the timer to keep the ship in space is an exploit? Because in this reality, CCP literally designed that mechanic specifically to accomplish that. Freighters, along with caps, were exploiting log off mechanics to win in situations they shouldn't, which is exactly why CCP made it.
wtf man I honestly don't understand you |
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp Goonswarm Federation
872
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 13:12:00 -
[805] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:Goon Gummy Bear Tears MMMMMMMM YUMMMY I guess when every pathetic argument you've made has been evicerated but you are still too angry to not post all you can do is insist you actually won. |
PeHD0M
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 13:28:00 -
[806] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp. Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing? |
baltec1
Bat Country
7220
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 14:02:00 -
[807] - Quote
PeHD0M wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp. Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?
Well aside from CCP stating that it is not an exploit and a valid tactic to use and the fact that jita would be very interesting, I can tell you that this tactic has counters.
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 14:31:00 -
[808] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:I think Callyuk has completely lost his mind, he's just ranting against the goon bogeyman when the majority of the people in this thread aren't even goons to begin with
No im just pointing out the Irony of them saying im a crying Noob , But when they do it its Not Whining Its Stating the facts ;) How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 14:34:00 -
[809] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote: Again, why focusing on bumping and it's relations to bumping miners is, as I've said, a terrible comparison.
Its exactly the same thing, the only difference is the size of the object we are ramming into. So how are you using bumping as a warp disruptor when bumping a miner from mining a rock? Bump the miner so he cannot align to warp off and then gank it. Exactly what we are doing with freighters.
But that wasn't in reference to miner bumping, because that doesn't happen anymore.
That was the way of long outdated can flipping. Now a handful of catalysts land, and blow the ship out of the water.
Hence my confusion as to why you compare the 2.
I mean, it's not to say you CAN'T still do the same thing. It just isn't the norm any longer. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 14:34:00 -
[810] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PeHD0M wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet I bet you see no issue with ponting a titan for 3 hours. Once again the bears of highsec demand to be exempt from pvp. Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing? Well aside from CCP stating that it is not an exploit and a valid tactic to use and the fact that jita would be very interesting, I can tell you that this tactic has counters.
Titans Moms Carriers Dreads Rorqs all dont apply to my thread. Only freighters and jf's and only in high sec and only in non war target situations . The conditions for this thread are very specific How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |